Chiltern MK3 replacement fleet possibilities?

[warwickshire]

The current locos appear to live in Stourbridge, this depot would probably accommodate the result of this selection.

How about Banbury, for mk5 also, also considering the move to Bletchley from Banbury for East West rail operations, Chiltern from a few good sources, I have been told, has a good amount of surplus drivers soon, from the latest original recruitment for East and West with Banbury being the original depot.
Banbury stabling sidings has plenty of surplus space around the side, put the two together, mk5 need work, surplus drivers need to do something ideal.
Plus ideal for Banbury to London Marylebone.
Covering first and Last services to London Marylebone to tie in with the vast majority of services which need to be covered from workings from London Marylebone to Birmingham Moor Street etc.
Plus recruitment a few guards at Banbury, In particular as well. Can even cover first and last Services Banbury to Birmingham Moor Street
Yet another result could this also be achieved this, way by also as well as using Stourbridge Junction like now for mk3 and Wembley mk3 also. but with Mk5 Replacement. and crewed same way. But Obviously with Banbury Drivers and guards becoming major key players.
Also Banbury depot is quite a way away from Houses.

 

[Wyrleybart]

Would be over 100 less seats compared to the 5 car MK5’s or 5 car 175’s.

Exactly. The 220//221 are very wasteful in terms of space and a 3 car 170 can carry the same std class pax as a 4 car 220. I cannot imagine any senior manager (possibly TfW excepted with 197s) agreeing to a new train which carries less passengers than the train it replaces.

 

[meld3]

Re: the noise of 68's. Its only the local flat residents around MYB affected, and then mainly when pulling out of the station to the tunnel.

Surely it can't be that hard to develop a small hybrid battery with just enough juice for that first mile, recharged from the ETS on the rest of the trip to Brum.

 

[Wyrleybart]

Re: the noise of 68's. Its only the local flat residents around MYB affected, and then mainly when pulling out of the station to the tunnel.

Surely it can't be that hard to develop a small hybrid battery with just enough juice for that first mile, recharged from the ETS on the rest of the trip to Brum.

I doubt you will find any space and weight onboard a class 68 to retrofit anything like that.

Perhaps what should have happened is TPE should have ordered some locos similar in concept to the XC plan in 1999, and which coincidentally would have had class 68 numbers. These were single cabbed class 67s multi'd to Mk5 coaching stock as an alternative to the voyagers.

Not sure how the weight would balance if you chopped the No 2 end cab off and built a lightweight plastic Mk5 style shell to house some traction batteries.

 

[Bob Price]

A couple of thoughts:

1. Chiltern have apparently ruled out the 175's

2. The reason give for the Mk5's to go is continued unreliability with TPE. Why would they suddenly become reliable with Chiltern?

 

[Wyrleybart]

A couple of thoughts:

1. Chiltern have apparently ruled out the 175's

2. The reason give for the Mk5's to go is continued unreliability with TPE. Why would they suddenly become reliable with Chiltern?

Because different TOCs seemingly have differing levels of ability, but I am not sure TPE found them unreliable. I think it was the case that TPE management got itself too dogknotted with traincrew training issues of new stock, that they just gave up on class 68+Mk5.

I also believe residents kicking off at Scarborough convinced some managers to waste a shedload of money training more crew on the South Pennine route to Cleethorpes instead of persevering with the original plan which, IIRC was Middlesbrough and Redcar.

There were reputedly some aluminium cracking "scares" with the rolling stock, but that seems to have gone quiet.

 

[43096]

2. The reason give for the Mk5's to go is continued unreliability with TPE. Why would they suddenly become reliable with Chiltern?

Because TPE were and are an incompetent shambles.

 

[fgwrich]

Because different TOCs seemingly have differing levels of ability, but I am not sure TPE found them unreliable. I think it was the case that TPE management got itself too dogknotted with traincrew training issues of new stock, that they just gave up on class 68+Mk5.

I also believe residents kicking off at Scarborough convinced some managers to waste a shedload of money training more crew on the South Pennine route to Cleethorpes instead of persevering with the original plan which, IIRC was Middlesbrough and Redcar.

There were reputedly some aluminium cracking "scares" with the rolling stock, but that seems to have gone quiet.

Spot on. I believe the reliability talk was conjuncture in the end, and they were sacrificed as a result of crew training issues - something TPE really has only to blame on themselves for choosing to go from 1 Class in fleet to 4.

 

[sjpowermac]

Spot on. I believe the reliability talk was conjuncture in the end, and they were sacrificed as a result of crew training issues - something TPE really has only to blame on themselves for choosing to go from 1 Class in fleet to 4.

It wasn’t crew training either. TPE had so many drivers/conductors trained on Class 68/Mk5A sets that they struggled to maintain enough instances of work on them to retain competency. The whole situation was a huge farce.

I suspect that the withdrawal of the Class 68/Mk5A sets from TPE was largely driven by cost cutting.

 

[Philip]

Seems like an undisclosed TOC has already done a deal for the 175s and had done so before this tender document was released, going off the post in the 175 thread.

 

[Energy]

It wasn’t crew training either. TPE had so many drivers/conductors trained on Class 68/Mk5A sets that they struggled to maintain enough instances of work on them to retain competency. The whole situation was a huge farce.

I suspect that the withdrawal of the Class 68/Mk5A sets from TPE was largely driven by cost cutting.

It was expected that some 185s would leave at some point, loosing the 68/Mk5As made more sense than loosing 185s for TPE.

 

[sjpowermac]

It was expected that some 185s would leave at some point, loosing the 68/Mk5As made more sense than loosing 185s for TPE.

I’m not sure if you are agreeing or disagreeing with what I’ve put, or just adding additional information.

The number of Class 185s due to go off lease decreased as TPE routes were extended and timetables/diagrams became more realistic, e.g. Manchester Airport to Middlesbrough became MIA-Redcar and later Saltburn.

The last set of figures I saw were for 15 class 185s to go off lease, so 45 vehicles. In the end 13 Mk5A sets were lost, so 65 vehicles.

Certainly withdrawing the Class 68/Mk5A sets was the easy option for TPE and retaining the Class 185s the cheapest.

 

[Energy]

The number of Class 185s due to go off lease decreased as TPE routes were extended and timetables/diagrams became more realistic, e.g. Manchester Airport to Middlesbrough became MIA-Redcar and later Saltburn.

The last set of figures I saw were for 15 class 185s to go off lease, so 45 vehicles. In the end 13 Mk5A sets were lost, so 65 vehicles.

Indeed, originally 22 units (66 vehicles) would have left, so not dissimilar to the Mk5As. On paper, it's a 20-vehicle loss but I'm not convinced that TPE could get enough Mk5a sets into service if it retained them.

TPE's many-crew-changes operation really doesn't work with having multiple smaller fleets. The 68/Mk5As could have worked with a single depot running them on a self-contained route but it would need to be a route that wouldn't get noise complaints from the class 68.

The 68/Mk5as were intended as a quick capacity add until the 802s arrive and some 185s can leave, in hindsight, it would have been better to temporarily have the Northern 170s or get Hitachi to bump the TPE 802s up in the order queue above the GWR 802s.

Certainly withdrawing the Class 68/Mk5A sets was the easy option for TPE and retaining the Class 185s the cheapest.

Agreed, with the 68 noise mods they could work at Chiltern but TPE was in too problematic a state to keep them as opposed to keeping their go-anywhere 185s.

 

[sjpowermac]

Indeed, originally 22 units (66 vehicles) would have left, so not dissimilar to the Mk5As. On paper, it's a 20-vehicle loss but I'm not convinced that TPE could get enough Mk5a sets into service if it retained them.

TPE's many-crew-changes operation really doesn't work with having multiple smaller fleets. The 68/Mk5As could have worked with a single depot running them on a self-contained route but it would need to be a route that wouldn't get noise complaints from the class 68.

The 68/Mk5as were intended as a quick capacity add until the 802s arrive and some 185s can leave, in hindsight, it would have been better to temporarily have the Northern 170s or get Hitachi to bump the TPE 802s up in the order queue above the GWR 802s.

Agreed, with the 68 noise mods they could work at Chiltern but TPE was in too problematic a state to keep them as opposed to keeping their go-anywhere 185s.

I agree with elements of what you have written there, but the number of drivers and conductors trained on Class 68/Mk5A exceeded by quite a margin the numbers originally intended.

There was never a level playing field though. A prime example was in the training of new recruits to driving.

There are two links at York, one involves Class 185s and Class 802s with drivers passing out on both during their initial training course. The second link being Class 185s and Class 68/Mk5A, with the Class 185s being covered during initial training and the Class 68/Mk5A added at a later stage. As you have noted, ‘optimised’ crew diagrams don’t mix well with this kind of situation, especially when for much of the time it was mixed with a rest day working ban.

So, there were organisational factors that had there been a will there would have been a way that the Class 68/Mk5A sets could have been successfully deployed on TPE.

On TPE if there’s a difficult and dysfunctional way to do something then you can pretty much guarantee that is the option they will choose.

Anyhow, I’m sure that Chiltern would be an ideal home for the Class 68/Mk5A sets and it will be interesting to see what happens next.

 

[Energy]

but the number of drivers and conductors trained on Class 68/Mk5A exceeded by quite a margin the numbers originally intended.

That's why I think they don't work with the TPE operation as a whole which ended up with loads trained but training often lapsing.

So, there were organisational factors that had there been a will there would have been a way that the Class 68/Mk5A sets could have been successfully deployed on TPE.

I agree that if there was a will they could have been deployed on a self-contained route. But given their noise complaints, it isn't a surprise that TPE management didn't want them and would rather let them go.

 

[sjpowermac]

That's why I think they don't work with the TPE operation as a whole which ended up with loads trained but training often lapsing.

I agree that if there was a will they could have been deployed on a self-contained route. But given their noise complaints, it isn't a surprise that TPE management didn't want them and would rather let them go.

Both of the points you make are down to mismanagement.

The noise complaints at Scarborough were at least in part self inflicted, due to leaving locos running all night with the ETS switched on.

Not having the shore supply operational between March 2020 and May 2023 was a major problem, but one that a competent operator would have sorted much sooner (at least post-pandemic).

As with so many observers, you do seem to have fallen for the TPE alternative reality.

I don’t to be honest know much about Chiltern, but they do seem to be a very pragmatic operator and I’m sure the Class 68/Mk5A sets would be a good match for them.

 

[Snow1964]

I don’t to be honest know much about Chiltern, but they do seem to be a very pragmatic operator and I’m sure the Class 68/Mk5A sets would be a good match for them.

Things could potentially move very fast, (or at snail speed)

Tender closes 9am 2nd February
Then it depends on number of bids
Quick bit of admin, tick box exercise will determine if bids meet requirements, or if they don't

Unless there are multiple valid bids (2 or more), either prices will be very close, which needs further evaluation, or potentially by lunchtime on that day, they will have clear winner.

So how long would it take, contracts tend to involve lawyers, which might have been given the date to keep their diary free, anything from about week upwards. We might have rolling stock arriving for training by Easter.

Of course, could be that it sits on someone's desk for months whilst they dither over some minor details, and won't hear until Autumn.

From a personal point of view, I would like to see Chiltern cascade their fleet, and release few 165s to Reading, which would allow modified ride height 165s to supplement the struggling Bristol fleet (but this is more of a logical wish list than reality)

 

[Danfilm007]

When do the Mk5as come off lease from TPE? May 24? Could they be subleased for training purposes?

 

[12LDA28C]

Isn't Chiltern mirrors and guard north of Banbury (and all LHCS)?

Why can't LHCS use mirrors?

Chiltern use a combination of 'look back', monitors and mirrors and there is no method of working for LHCS to run DOO which is why guards are provided on all hauled trains.

If any units are freed up, I suspect it'll be the worst of the Turbo units, quite possibly to become a Christmas Tree for the 165 fleet. On a very outside chance, any 168s could be freed up for EMR.

Given that the 168s are currently undergoing a refresh for Chiltern, I would say any move to another operator is beyond unlikely.

 

[Snow1964]

Chiltern use a combination of 'look back', monitors and mirrors and there is no method of working for LHCS to run DOO which is why guards are provided on all hauled trains.

I might be wrong, but whilst that is true of mk3 and mk4 loco hauled, not sure if it also applies to mk5 as door controls are provided in the cabs

 

[12LDA28C]

Isn’t Stourbridge the 139 depot and the 68s are maintained at Wembley?

139s run on the Stourbridge town branch. Not sure what that has to do with Chiltern's depot at Stourbridge Junction, where the 68s and Mk3s are stabled and serviced/fuelled overnight.

I might be wrong, but whilst that is true of mk3 and mk4 loco hauled, not sure if it also applies to mk5 as door controls are provided in the cabs

So did 68s and Mk5s run DOO on TPE?

 

[87015]

So did 68s and Mk5s run DOO on TPE?

No - but TPE didn't even raise DOO as a possibility I don't think (lets be honest running trains competently is generally beyond them in the first place, let alone trying to bring that in) whereas the sets are claimed 'DOO ready' and Chiltern may or may not have ideas for it. Certainly would allow the Oxfords to come into play for Mk5s given they'll fit in the bays. I've no idea whether the current standards for DOO would allow expansion for other stock and mirrors/lookback etc regardless of whether its 175/222/Mk5/67+321/350?

 

[Bletchleyite]

So did 68s and Mk5s run DOO on TPE?

No, but that's because TPE don't run any DOO services, not because they couldn't be run DOO.

Does the passcom on the Mk5s go through to the driver? That's the big thing aside from the door controls. (There's also that the driver can't get to the train without walking up the ballast, but that's true for part of the train on almost every Chiltern train as they operate non-gangwayed units in multiple all the time).

 

[richa2002]

Re: the noise of 68's. Its only the local flat residents around MYB affected, and then mainly when pulling out of the station to the tunnel.

Surely it can't be that hard to develop a small hybrid battery with just enough juice for that first mile, recharged from the ETS on the rest of the trip to Brum.

I can't believe so much credence is given to residents living in a noisy city about a passing train being a bit noisier than the others.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I can't believe so much credence is given to residents living in a noisy city about a passing train being a bit noisier than the others.

It is a LOT noisier than the others including heavy low frequency vibration (which is extremely annoying compared to just the hum of a DMU engine).

 

[12LDA28C]

No - but TPE didn't even raise DOO as a possibility I don't think (lets be honest running trains competently is generally beyond them in the first place, let alone trying to bring that in) whereas the sets are claimed 'DOO ready' and Chiltern may or may not have ideas for it. Certainly would allow the Oxfords to come into play for Mk5s given they'll fit in the bays. I've no idea whether the current standards for DOO would allow expansion for other stock and mirrors/lookback etc regardless of whether its 175/222/Mk5/67+321/350?

The fact is that it's irrelevant if there are door controls provided in the cabs or not. If a TOC does not have a method of operation for running LHCS DOO then it won't happen.

Chiltern use guards on LHCS and on all trains north of Banbury due to a historical agreement which will not be changing any time soon, so I don't expect any extension of DOO to happen.

No, but that's because TPE don't run any DOO services, not because they couldn't be run DOO.

And Chiltern don't run any LHCS services DOO.

(There's also that the driver can't get to the train without walking up the ballast, but that's true for part of the train on almost every Chiltern train as they operate non-gangwayed units in multiple all the time).

But of course on Chiltern the driver can access the emergency equipment on the unit they are driving without walking up the ballast so I've no idea what point you're trying to make there.

 

[sjpowermac]

As others have mentioned, no DOO on TPE.

The drivers were responsible for opening the doors with the assistance of an Automatic Selective Door Operation system that worked mainly through GPS.

In the event of an ASDO failure, opening of the doors was given back to the guard.

 

[12LDA28C]

As others have mentioned, no DOO on TPE.

I'm aware - my point was that Chiltern do not operate LHCS DOO and it's extremely unlikely that they would start now.

 

[172007]

I'm aware - my point was that Chiltern do not operate LHCS DOO and it's extremely unlikely that they would start now.

Why?

All new stock has DCO equipment. Class 350's and 172's have had it installed. It's clearly someone's intention to try to start DCO on routes already with conductors so there is absolutely no reason why Mk5a's and their motive power don't go away for a month each and reappear fully DCO ready.

 

[12LDA28C]

Why?

All new stock has DCO equipment. Class 350's and 172's have had it installed. It's clearly someone's intention to try to start DCO on routes already with conductors so there is absolutely no reason why Mk5a's and their motive power don't go away for a month each and reappear fully DCO ready.

Because Chiltern's method of operation for LHCS requires a guard on board. There's no DOO equipment north of Banbury, for a start.